Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: McMaster PLUS is an internet-based service that disseminates quality filtered, clinically rated original studies and systematic reviews to practicing clinicians, matched to their clinical discipline(s).
Objectives: To compare clinical relevance and newsworthiness ratings, and access rates, for Cochrane reviews (CR) compared with systematic reviews published in other journals.
Methods: We have developed 2 complementary services: MORE (McMaster Online Rating of Evidence, with over 2000 practicing physicians) and PLUS (Premium LiteratUre Service). Six research staff at McMaster, intensively calibrated, review all issues of over 110 journals, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, on an ongoing basis. Original and review articles categorized for purpose (e.g., therapy, diagnosis) are "passed" or "failed" according to explicit
critical appraisal criteria. Pass articles are indexed for as many disciplines as apply (e.g., General Practice, Internal Medicine) and sent for rating via MORE to 4 clinicians for each pertinent discipline. Clinicians assess articles for both clinical relevancy and newsworthiness on 7-point Likert scales. Articles with average ratings of 3 or more on both scales for at least 1 discipline are disseminated through PLUS, which sends e-mail alerts tailored to the registrant's clinical discipline(s) and rating preferences, and has a cumulative searchable database.
Results: By January 2005, 980 Cochrane reviews were selected, 52.3% of all review articles in PLUS. However, the mean relevancy and newsworthiness ratings for CRs were lowest among the top 10 contributing journals for systematic reviews (Table 1). Further, 57.1% of CRs, compared with 63.3% of the other top 10 journal's reviews, were rated 5/7 or above for relevancy (difference 6.2%, 95% CI 0.5-11.8%, 2P=0.035). For newsworthiness, 16.9% of CRs vs 22.2% of other reviews were rated 5/7 or above (difference 5.3%, 95% CI 0.7-10.1, 2P=0.022). During April-December 2004 PLUS users accessed CRs at the same rate as other systematic reviews (12.7% vs 14.4%; difference -1.8%, 95% CI -4.9-1.3, 2P=0.27)
Conclusion: Cochrane reviews constituted over half of the systematic reviews rated by clinicians as relevant and newsworthy from over 110 clinical journals. However, clinicians rated systematic reviews published in leading journals somewhat higher for both relevance and newsworthiness.
Objectives: To compare clinical relevance and newsworthiness ratings, and access rates, for Cochrane reviews (CR) compared with systematic reviews published in other journals.
Methods: We have developed 2 complementary services: MORE (McMaster Online Rating of Evidence, with over 2000 practicing physicians) and PLUS (Premium LiteratUre Service). Six research staff at McMaster, intensively calibrated, review all issues of over 110 journals, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, on an ongoing basis. Original and review articles categorized for purpose (e.g., therapy, diagnosis) are "passed" or "failed" according to explicit
critical appraisal criteria. Pass articles are indexed for as many disciplines as apply (e.g., General Practice, Internal Medicine) and sent for rating via MORE to 4 clinicians for each pertinent discipline. Clinicians assess articles for both clinical relevancy and newsworthiness on 7-point Likert scales. Articles with average ratings of 3 or more on both scales for at least 1 discipline are disseminated through PLUS, which sends e-mail alerts tailored to the registrant's clinical discipline(s) and rating preferences, and has a cumulative searchable database.
Results: By January 2005, 980 Cochrane reviews were selected, 52.3% of all review articles in PLUS. However, the mean relevancy and newsworthiness ratings for CRs were lowest among the top 10 contributing journals for systematic reviews (Table 1). Further, 57.1% of CRs, compared with 63.3% of the other top 10 journal's reviews, were rated 5/7 or above for relevancy (difference 6.2%, 95% CI 0.5-11.8%, 2P=0.035). For newsworthiness, 16.9% of CRs vs 22.2% of other reviews were rated 5/7 or above (difference 5.3%, 95% CI 0.7-10.1, 2P=0.022). During April-December 2004 PLUS users accessed CRs at the same rate as other systematic reviews (12.7% vs 14.4%; difference -1.8%, 95% CI -4.9-1.3, 2P=0.27)
Conclusion: Cochrane reviews constituted over half of the systematic reviews rated by clinicians as relevant and newsworthy from over 110 clinical journals. However, clinicians rated systematic reviews published in leading journals somewhat higher for both relevance and newsworthiness.
PDF